Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00455-MMS

Document 39

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CORT ANCMAN and EILEEN ANCMAN, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-455C (Judge Sweeney)

DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Pursuant to Rules 6(b) and 6.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), the United States respectfully requests an enlargement of time of 18 days, to and including March 12, 2007, to submit its reply to plaintiffs' response to our motion to dismiss and alternative motion for judgment upon the administrative record. The Government's reply is currently due on or before February 22, 2007. This is defendant's first request for an enlargement of time for these purposes. Counsel for defendant has discussed this motion with plaintiffs' counsel, and plaintiffs do not oppose this request. An brief enlargement of time is necessary because the United States has not received final substantive comments from the Department of the Air Force regarding the plaintiffs' response. The agency's substantive comments, which we expect to receive within the next few days, will then need to be incorporated into a draft brief that then must undergo the review process within the Department of Justice.

Case 1:05-cv-00455-MMS

Document 39

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 2 of 4

This motion is also necessary because Government counsel must be in Chicago for part of the week of February 26, 2007, for conclusion of the trial in the case of Englewood Terrace Limited Partnerships v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 03-2209. Furthermore, Government counsel has briefs that must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 23, 2007 in the cases of Hernandez v. Department of the Air Force, Fed. Cir. No. 20063034 and Pucilowski v. Department of Justice, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-3388. This enlargement will allow counsel time to prepare for, and conclude the trial in Chicago, and further confer with his agency counterparts in Hernandez and Pucilowski, and to obtain supervisory review of those two briefs, so that they may be finalized and filed with the Court by their due date. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed request for an enlargement of time of 18 days until March 12, 2007, in which defendant can file its reply to plaintiffs' response to our motion for summary judgement. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Acting Director

s/Bryant G. Snee BRYANT G. SNEE Assistant Director

2

Case 1:05-cv-00455-MMS

Document 39

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 3 of 4

OF COUNSEL: MAJOR CAREY A. MERRILL Air Force Legal Services Agency 1501 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209

s/Douglas K. Mickle DOUGLAS K. MICKLE Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-0383 Fax: (202) 353-7988 Attorneys for Defendant

February 20, 2007

3

Case 1:05-cv-00455-MMS

Document 39

Filed 02/20/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on February 20, 2007, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

s/Douglas K. Mickle Douglas K. Mickle

____________________________